Jump to content

mfbukowski

Contributor
  • Content Count

    28,842
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14,942 Excellent

About mfbukowski

  • Rank
    Wittgensteinian Pot-Stirrer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles Area
  • Interests
    My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism.

Recent Profile Visitors

8,413 profile views
  1. mfbukowski

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    missed it, just trying to help
  2. mfbukowski

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    As usual I never said that. Show me exactly where I said it was "objectively better"? The whole notion is absurd. "Objectively better" is actually a contradiction in terms. Better by definition is in the eye of the beholder Yet contextually there is wide spread agreement about what is "good" in general terms. Most people do not endorse murdering people for fun. But if there was such a community, the larger community would enforce their own values using force. That's why there are wars. Disagreement about what is "better" That alone proves there is no "objective better" This world is made of Republicans and Communists, pacifists and freedom fighters and one man's patriot is another man's terrorist. Please do not invent things I never said and them attribute them to me. There are others here who do the same thing due to inability to read clearly "Better"? yes of course that is my opinon which coheres with that of many many people. "Objectively better" ? Self contradictory
  3. mfbukowski

    Evidence for the Book of Abraham

    Pardon a stupid question from someone totally uneducated in these matters but I noticed that the Canaanites here appear to be lighter skinned than the Egyptians- where did we get the idea that they would be darker skinned? Or was that just in my uneducated brain??
  4. mfbukowski

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    (He's Orthodox not RC....)
  5. mfbukowski

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    Could be- I am not sure what your point is. Obviously they had no criteria for determining what was a "good" paradigm which just reinforces my point as far as I can see that YOU should decide your own paradigm and not listen to others. For me the prime directive is to follow what is "good" by your own standards and stick to your own principles. You are the one who wants you to pick an external source to judge which paradigm is best. I pick my own and suicide is not an option nor does it describe my idea of a "good religion" If president Nelson came to my house and told me to commit suicide I would throw him out and create my own church.
  6. mfbukowski

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    Not really. Some paradigms are better than others for the purpose of making us the best humans we can become etc- you pick the purpose. I think the notion of trying to be like God is about the best paradigm humans can have to make them better humans by imitating Christ I suppose others might disagree with that if they have other goals. Since God is defined as being perfect one would think that being a perfect human would be a perfect paradigm. And that is precisely what the Mormon paradigm for what God is is a perfected, literal human. I am not here to please most Mormons- I am here to hone paradigms and find the best for me.
  7. mfbukowski

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    The whole point of this is that the fact that they of course are also included in the deflationary theory automatically makes them both "true" in their context and community but not for other communities. Therefore Catholicism can be "true" for Catholics and Buddhism can be "true" for Buddhists. The key is the pretty much indisputable fact that truth is undefinable. As Rorty says, we know how to use the term in the simple ways we use it- in a court for example- where the community is the jury who becomes the artiber of what is true or false. And that is just. We send people to the electric chair for the principle that truth is in the eye of one's "peers" as in a "jury of their peers" We judge all scholarly "truth" by "peer reviewed articles" in which Geologists are judged by Geologists, and Catholic theologians judge Catholic theologians, psychologists in a sub-area of specialization judge their "peers" as well. But look at the good side of this- in a science context transubstantiation is not even worthy of consideration as being "true" but in a Catholic community it is an absolute "truth". It is one of the prime doctrinal points of Catholicism as well as all "substance theology" including the Trinity etc. The entire spiritual power of the church depends on these philosophies of substance being "true" within a context. And that is fine with me. They ARE true for Catholics just as Mormonism is for Mormons and some theory in geology is true for geologists. And some day Catholicism will change a doctrine or practice - it has happened before- and it still will be true because the community affirms it. Same with Mormonism, same with geology. New paradigms evolve and truth itself changes. A few years ago everyone was certain that Pluto was a "planet" and then they changed the criteria for defining planets and suddenly Pluto was no longer a planet. Was it "really" no longer a planet? Yep! Before they changed it was it "really" a planet? Yep! Before there was a concept and word for "Earth" and a concept and word for "round" was the earth round? Literally "unheard of"! We lived at the center of the universe- and that was a perfectly empirical observation everyone could make Did the "truth" change? Yep!- on the deflationary theory. And no other theory of truth works for all circumstances. For 2000 years philosophers have tried every possibility and this is the best- and yes- I will say "so far" because to deny that truth changes violates the principle itself that.... wait for it... truth changes! Honestly philosophers are not dumb enough to make that mistake!! So religious people do not understand the value of putting religion on the same "truth criteria" as is science but it is! Within its context, and purposes (giving one purpose in life and understanding of where they came from, how to live and where they are going) religion is as true as science in its purpose- empirical and objective observations of the world. As Galileo said,
  8. mfbukowski

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    So how do you PICK this arbiter? Or know to follow Jesus and not Mohammed or Billy Graham or Buddha? You skipped the entire point in question. And there's a lot more about "truth" but you right about that. Its not definable. You don't understand that the only way to justify any religious beliefs. The existence of God is not an empirical fact. I don't know why you want to stress empiricism. That's barking up the wrong tree.
  9. mfbukowski

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    Well yes, I think it is original and I need to get the word out. Were more Mormons into the philosophies of men they would know their beliefs are justified philosophically. Rorty knows it, and he knew Mormonism It's Rorty, chapter and verse Not me
  10. mfbukowski

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    Great points! I really liked the Zeus analogy! Especially when tied to BOM and BOA history. True religion does not require historicity
  11. mfbukowski

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    To me this is a distinction without a difference. If you have to pick one side or another- why pick anyone? Why disparage God's ability to communicate with you if he can communicate at least what church you should join? Or does he leave us alone to pick? That doesn't make sense to me!
  12. mfbukowski

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    Unsurprisingly I was just about to post those exact words
  13. mfbukowski

    Is the Bible self-authenticating?

    If you accept that then you are right. Why would anyone in their right mind believe that anybody can tell them what God wants for them? Why would God give us a brain if we just follow someone blindly? The true nature of God arguably is "unknowable" but certainly one must be able to pick the best paradigm which approximates the theory that works best for them. Otherwise, what is the guard against Jonestown? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
  14. mfbukowski

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    Prayer does not reveal anything about history in a scholarly context because prayer it's not within a scholar the context. That is what we've been discussing oddly enough for over a year. If however the belief in historicity is in a religious context then secular Scholars have nothing to do with it. I have said that over and over. Whether or not the atonement occurred in 33 ad is a religious question. Whether or not the Book of Mormon is historical is a religious question. Regarding George Washington If by accurate you're talking about agreeing with the consensus of Scholars then yes the statement about being the first president is more accurate than the other one. Define accurate any other way. You can't. But these are semantic games. Essentially you're asking if historians create paradigms about history. Of course they do. To me it's like asking if all bachelors really are unmarried or if some bachelors might possibly be "actually " married. Accepted history is what historians accept. To me this is all just tautologies. You still seem to be stuck on absolute truth and take accuracy as correspondence with the world. Of course if that is the case you'd have to already know about how the world is, independent of the scholars in order to know if what they said correponded to the real thing or not. That of course is absurd.
×